Continuation of question: The Gemara answered that there is different, for the Torah said "Lo Yechalel" - he makes [his children] Chalalim, but not Mamzerim.

Explanation: Since the child is not a Mamzer, Kidushin is Tofsin in her.

Summation of question: If so, according to R. Yehoshua, there is no Kidushin in a widow [to a Kohen Gadol] according to Rava, since R. Yehoshua we cannot prove that Kidushin Tofsin just because the child is not a Mamzer!

Question: In Kidushin (68b), why do we struggle to find a source that Kidushin does not take effect on other Arayos?

Since we already find that Kidushin does not take effect in Eshes Av, we can learn from there all Arayos from which the child is a Mamzer!

Answer: We do not know that the child is a Mamzer from other Arayos until we bring R. Yonah's Hekesh;

From "Lo Yikach... v'Lo Yegaleh [Es Kenaf Aviv]", which we bring below (49a), which are written regarding Eshes Av and Shomeres Yavam of his father, we do not learn Mamzerim from other Arayos such as Eshes Ish, which has a Heter [through divorce] in the life of the one who forbids her, and Achos Ishah, and all similar cases;

However, after we bring the Hekesh, we can learn in general, like I explained.

Question: R. Yochanan holds above that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is a Mamzer;

If so, why do we need the verse [Almanah u'Gerushah]? The child is a Mamzer. Do we need a source that he disqualifies through his Bi'ah?!

Answer #1: One of these is R. Yochanan's own opinion, and the other is according to his Rebbi. (He taught this teaching in the name of R. Shimon. He himself disagrees.)

Answer #2: Amora'im argue about R. Yochanan's opinion, like we said above (16b);

There I explained why there is a Mamzer from a Nochri, since (i.e. even though) mid'Oraisa the Bi'ah is permitted.

Explanation: [Where they do not recognize you,] they will marry you to girls of proper lineage.

Question: We require a proof [of proper lineage], like it says in Kesuvos (24b) that eating Terumah is a proof for lineage!

Answer #1: That is only to marry his daughter to a Kohen who serves on the Mizbe'ach, like R. Tam proved there.

Answer #2: That is like R. Meir. Chachamim hold that all families have Chezkas Kashrus (Kidushin 72a).

Implied question: In Kidushin (7a), if one said "be Mekudeshes to half of me", his words would have no effect, if not that he means "if I want to marry another, I may"!

Answer: That is because he left over in his Kinyan (could have made a bigger Kinyan, but did not), like it says in Gitin (43a). Here, he did not leave over.

Question: We cannot learn from Eshes Av, for there is Kares and Misas Beis Din for it!

Answer: Mamzeres depends on whether Kidushin takes effect, like I explained above.

The text: The text says Rava, and not Rav, for Rav Mari was the son of Isur Giyura, who was in the days of Rava (Bava Basra 149a).

Explanation: The word Pursei means "appointee", like it says in Yoma (9a) "what is Parhedrin? It is Pursei."

Question: This is difficult for what Rashi explained in Sotah (41a) regarding Agripas ha'Melech;

[Chachamim] said to him "you are our brother." The Gemara says that at the time, the haters of (this is a euphemism) Yisrael were worthy to be wiped out for flattering Agripas;

Rashi explained that they called him "our brother" because his mother was a Yisrael. If so, why were they punished? Here we say that since his mother was a Yisrael, this is called mi'Kerev Achecha!

Suggestion: [They were liable because] a Tosefta (Sanhedrin Perek 4) says that we establish a king only from people who may marry into Kehunah!

Rejection: It is astounding to say that they were worthy to be wiped out [if mid'Oraisa he was Kosher, and he was Pasul only] due to an Isur mid'Rabanan.

Answer (Rashbam): Hordus (from whom Agripas descended) did not marry a Bas Yisrael. He did Teshuvah, like it says in Bava Basra (4a);

This is why they were punished. Even though he was a slave, they called him "our brother", for he was their brother in Mitzvos [but may not be a king].

Support: Shmuel said in Kidushin (70b) that anyone who says "I come from Beis Chashmonai" is a slave;

Implied question: Shmuel himself holds that if a Nochri or slave has Bi'ah with a Yisraelis, the child is Kosher!

Answer: Rather, we must say that he did not marry a Yisraelis.

Question: In any case, why is he a slave? Presumably, when Hurdus reigned, his masters despaired;

Shmuel holds that if one was Mafkir his slave, he goes free, and he does not need a Get Shichrur!

Answer: Perhaps they anticipated that his grandeur will be lowered [and they will resume to rule over him].

Question: Here, the Gemara connotes that if a convert's mother is not from Yisrael, he is not Kosher to be a judge;

In Sanhedrin (36b), a Mishnah says that all are Kosher to judge. The Gemara asks that we already learned this, and answers that one Mishnah includes a convert, and one includes a Mamzer;

Inference: A convert, even if his mother is not from Yisrael, rather, he himself converted, is Kosher to judge, for we say that he came from a Pasul drop [of semen].

Citation (36b): [One might have thought that] a convert, who came from a Pasul drop, is not [Kosher to judge]!

Answer: There, we discuss judging a fellow convert, like it says below (102a) that mid'Oraisa, a convert may judge his fellow [convert]. If his mother was a Yisraelis, a fellow convert, he may judge even Yisraelim.

Question: In Kidushin (76b), we say that one whose fathers were established to be Shotrim (officers) over the Rabim (we need not check his lineage);

We ask a contradiction from a Mishnah that says "everyone is Kosher to judge", and Rav Yehudah taught that 'everyone' includes a Mamzer!

Summation of Tosfos' question: What was difficult? The Mishnah is Machshir to judge his fellow [Mamzer]!

Answer: Since a Mamzer's father and mother are from Yisrael, he is called mi'Kerev Achecha. (One who may judge a Mamzer, may judge Yisre'elim.)

Proof: We expound "Alecha" (over you) you must appoint mi'Kerev Achecha. His fellow Mamzer is properly called Alecha, since he comes from the seed of Yisrael;

If a Mamzer may not judge Yisrael, he may not judge also his fellow Mamzer.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (36b), we show why we need to teach both a convert [that he is Kosher to judge] and a Mamzer. They are different! A convert is Kosher to judge only other converts!

Answer: In any case, we show why we need to teach both of them, for the Mishnayos taught Stam. This distinction is not explicit in the Mishnayos.

Explanation: He wanted to designate her for himself. He immersed her the way a Bas Yisrael immerses after a man asks to make Nisu'in with her.

He erred. Regarding slaves, there was no decree of Nashgaz (an acronym of Nidah, Shifchah, Goyah, Zonah. The Chashmona'im's Beis Din decreed that if a Yisrael has Bi'ah with a Nochris, he is liable for these four Isurim. (Zonah applies only if he is a Kohen.) Here, since he was a slave and she was a Nochris, he would not be liable for her for Nidah even mid'Rabanan.]

Question: We say below (46b) that a convert needs three judges, for it says "Mishpat"! (We may not assume that she immersed from Nidah in front of three judges!)

Even according to the opinion that (Sanhedrin 3a) that mid'Oraisa, even one may judge, women do not normally bring a man with them when they immerse!

[Even if women normally accompany a woman who immerses], a woman cannot be a judge, like a Mishnah (Nidah 49b) says "anyone Kosher to judge is Kosher to testify"!

The Yerushalmi in Yoma explicitly says that from here, since women cannot testify, they cannot judge.

Implied question: [A verse says that] Devorah [judged Yisrael]!

Answer #1: She did not judge. She merely taught them, so they could judge.

Answer #2: Hash-m permitted her. (It was a Hora'as Sha'ah. Normally, a woman cannot judge.)

Answer #1: We require acceptance of the Mitzvos in front of three, but not for Tevilah.

Implied question: We say below (47b) that two Chachamim stand outside [when a convert immerses]!

Answer: That is l'Chatchilah. It is better if they do [but it is not essential].

Answer #2: Since all know that she immersed, it is as if they were standing there.

Question: A Nidah immerses at night. Below (46b), we say that we do not immerse converts at night!

Answer: If "Mishpat" refers only to acceptance of Mitzvos, this is fine. [We can say that] we do not immerse converts at night l'Chatchilah, mid'Rabanan.